PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Report on
Indicators of Educational
Performance and Provision

TOGETHER WITH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE RELATING
TO THE REPORT AND THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Ordered by The Public Accounts Committee to be printed 26 June 2002
Report: 10/01/R (Public Accounts Committee)

Standing Orders under Section 60(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 have provided for the establishment of the Public Accounts Committee. It is the statutory function of the Public Accounts Committee to consider the accounts and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General laid before the Assembly.

The Public Accounts Committee is appointed under Standing Order No. 56. It has the power to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time. Neither the Chairperson nor Deputy Chairperson of the Committee shall be a member of the same political party as the Minister of Finance and Personnel or of any junior minister appointed to the Department of Finance and Personnel.

The Committee Members were appointed by the Assembly on 24 January 2000. They will continue to be Members of the Committee for the remainder of the Assembly, unless it orders otherwise. The Chairperson Billy Bell and Vice-Chairperson Sue Ramsey were previously appointed on 15 December 1999. The full membership of the Committee is as follows:-

• Mr Billy Bell (Ulster Unionist Party, Lagan Valley) (Chairperson)
• Ms Sue Ramsey (Sinn Fein, Belfast West) (Deputy Chairperson)
• Ms Pauline Armitage (Ulster Unionist Party, East Londonderry)
• Mr Roy Beggs Jnr (Ulster Unionist Party, East Antrim)
• Mr Mervyn Carrick (Democratic Unionist Party, Upper Bann)
• Mr Seamus Close (Alliance Party, Lagan Valley)
• Mr John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)
• Mr David Hilditch (Democratic Unionist Party, East Antrim)
• Mr Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)
• Ms Jane Morrice (Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, North Down)
• Mr Danny O'Connor (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Antrim)

All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at archive.niassembly.gov.uk/accounts.htm

All correspondence should be addressed to The Clerk of the Public Accounts Committee, Room 371, Parliament Buildings, Stormont, BELFAST, BT4 3XX. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 028-9052-1532. The Committee's e-mail address is: michael.rickard@niassembly.gov.uk

Top

Introduction
Main Conclusion
Principal Conclusions And Recommendations
Pre-School Education
Class Sizes In Primary Schools
School Occupancy Levels
Educational Achievement
School Suspensions
Special Needs Education
Spending On Education

Proceedings of the Committee Relating to the Report

Minutes of Evidence (Wednesday 24th April 2002)

Mr Gerry McGinn, Accounting Officer of the Department of Education
Mr Stephen Peover, Deputy Secretary, Department of Education
Mr Joseph Martin, Chief Executive of the Western Education and Library Board
Mr John Dowdall Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG)
Mr Leo O'Reilly, Treasury Officer of Accounts, Department of Finance and Personnel

Correspondence from Mr Stephen Peover, Deputy Secretary, Department of Education

Top

TENTH REPORT

1. The Public Accounts Committee met on 24 April 2002 to consider the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report on "Indicators of Educational Performance and Provision" (NIA 48/01, Session 2001-2002). Our witnesses were:

• Mr Gerry McGinn, Accounting Officer of the Department of Education
• Mr Stephen Peover, Deputy Secretary, Department of Education
• Mr Joseph Martin, Chief Executive of the Western Education and Library Board
• Mr John Dowdall Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG)
• Mr Leo O'Reilly, Treasury Officer of Accounts, Department of Finance and Personnel.

The Committee also took written evidence from Mr McGinn (Appendix 1)

2. The C&AG's Report considered how the Boards and their schools have performed over a range of education services. The indicators selected in the report were derived from schools' data and provide a spread of measures across educational achievement and cover questions of value for money and equity. The aim of the C&AG's report was to suggest how the Boards might build on existing processes to make further use of management information to stimulate improvement in the areas targeted by the Executive.

3. In taking evidence, the Committee focused on the seven issues raised by the Report. These were:

• Pre-School Education
• Class Sizes in Primary Schools
• School Occupancy Levels
• Educational Achievement
• School Suspensions
• Special Needs Education
• Spending on Education

Top

4. Ready access to education performance indicators is essential if the community is to hold the Education and Library Boards accountable for their performance. Moreover, with the Northern Ireland Executive stressing education as one of its priorities, it is also important that the Boards look carefully at how well they and their schools are performing in order to meet the challenges of the future. While the Committee recognises that there is a wealth of information within the education sector, it is complex and not readily accessible. This Report recommends, therefore, that a small number of key statistics relating to education performance targets and value for money should be distilled from information supplied by schools and published by the Department of Education on an annual basis. Showing how the performance of the Boards changes over time as well as comparing performance between Boards will not only satisfy the demands of accountability but should help to enable good practice and assist in raising standards. It would also be helpful if consideration was given to presenting data on a sectoral basis: for example, showing performances in the controlled, maintained and integrated sectors. We welcome the Department's intention to publish an annual compendium of performance information and look to it to take prompt action on this.

C&AG's report, paragraph 1.19 and Minutes of Evidence paragraphs 4 - 8, 44-46 and 115-123.

Top

5.1 We would urge the Department to ensure that, in expanding nursery places, the diversity of pre-school provision is maintained in order that the needs of working parents for flexibility and choice are taken into account along with the educational needs of children.

Main Report, paragraph 6.

5.2 The Committee feels it is essential that the Department continually evaluates the results of reduced class size to ensure that the substantial public investment pays off in terms of pupil achievement.

Main Report, paragraph 7.

5.3 While they need to take account of the needs of small communities, the Education and Library Boards need to maintain their efforts to balance the supply and allocation of school places by continuing to bring forward proposals for rationalisation where they are justified in financial and educational terms. We would expect that, over time the high level of surplus places should be substantially reduced and look to the Department to monitor this.

Main Report, paragraph 8.

5.4 The Department intends to create a formal regional group, including the Education and Library Boards and the integrated sector, to review the capacity and potential for transforming places in the controlled and maintained sectors into additional places in the integrated sector. The Committee wish to be kept informed of progress in this area.

Main Report, paragraph 9.

5.5 It is essential that the Department, the Education and Library Boards and schools take up the challenge of ensuring that every child develops sound literacy and numeracy skills. This challenge must be met for the sake of our children and Northern Ireland's future.

Main Report, paragraph 11.

5.6 It is vital that the Department establishes credible and realistic targets for literacy and numeracy and that it sticks with them. To ensure that pupils have the skills that will enable them to make the most of their education, training and employment opportunities, we should be striving to achieve educational attainment levels which are better than the United Kingdom average.

Main Report, paragraph 12.

5.7 Accurate information on the numbers of children permanently excluded and suspended from schools is vital if we are to grasp the true nature and extent of the problem. What is not measured accurately cannot be managed effectively. We would like an assurance that the Department has reviewed the full range of its statistical requirements in this area and that it is satisfied that it will have sufficiently reliable information to proceed with specific management strategies.

Main Report, paragraph 14.

5.8 In addition to data on the scale of suspensions and expulsions, the Committee recommends that the publication of an annual compendium of performance indicators should also contain comparative information on the costs per pupil of school exclusions.

Main Report, paragraph 15.

5.9 The Committee agrees with the C&AG's report that schools should be encouraged to develop whole-school policies which limit disaffection and exclusion and that the Education and Library Boards should monitor schools and intervene to ensure that these policies are introduced.

Main Report, paragraph 16.

5.10 We look to the Department to ensure that there is fairness and equity in how the Boards safeguard the most needy children in our schools and that where statements of special educational need are used these do not favour the children of articulate pro-active parents at the expense of the many.

Main Report, paragraph 17.

5.11 The Committee is astonished that the Department and the Boards do not yet have information to show how well the Boards are performing against the target of preparing statements of special educational need within 18 weeks. It is essential that accurate and reliable data is collected as a matter of urgency. Waiting to see how a Board intends to address a child's special needs can be stressful and worrying. Performance information will establish how prolonged this wait can be and allow the Boards to set targets for improving their performance until they reach the 18 week standard in the Code of Practice.

Main Report, paragraph 18.

5.12 Departments must accept full responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of all data quoted in any Northern Ireland Audit Office report which has been through the normal thorough clearance process. It is crucial to the effectiveness of Committee evidence sessions that members can rely on the accuracy of data which Departments have cleared and the Committee would ask the Department of Finance and Personnel to reinforce this point by reminding all Departments of its importance.

Main Report, paragraphs 19 and 20.

5.13 The Committee recommends that, in developing performance information systems, the Boards should ensure that unit cost data is used in conjunction with academic indicators and other factors in order to monitor how efficiently end effectively schools are utilising their resources.

Main Report, paragraph 21.

5.14 While there is evidence of a correlation between free school meal entitlement and educational achievement, the Department made the point that it is a proxy measure and not a causal one. As a result, the Department told us that it was looking at the direct use of measures of educational achievement, for example, Key Stage 2 results, as a way of trying to assess the funding needs of schools with greater precision. The Committee welcomes this.

Main Report, paragraph 22.

Top

6. The Committee was pleased to learn that the Department's pre-school expansion programme was ahead of target in providing nursery places for 96 per cent of four year olds by 2003. It told us that in 2001 almost 20,000 children were availing of funded pre-school places representing 83 percent of the primary 1 cohort. The Department also told the Committee that in developing the expansion programme the views of school governors and parents had been sought. The Committee expressed some concern that the push to make more pre-school places available appeared to have prompted some primary schools to open nursery units/reception classes which threatened the viability of local playgroups when the numbers attending them fell. We would urge the Department to ensure that, in expanding nursery places, the diversity of pre-school provision is maintained in order that the needs of working parents for flexibility and choice are taken into account along with the educational needs of children.

Minutes of Evidence, paragraphs 57-66 and paragraphs 155-176 and Appendix 1.

Top

7. The Committee commends the efforts of the Education and Library Boards in reducing overall class sizes in their primary schools. While the notion that smaller class sizes improve pupil learning has an intuitive feel, we note the Department's comments that there are many variables involved in improvement and that it is difficult to isolate the separate impact of reduced class size. However, because the implementation of this policy can be expensive, we feel it is essential that the Department continually evaluates the results of reduced class size to ensure that the substantial public investment pays off in terms of pupil achievement.

C&AG's report, paragraph 3.1 and Minutes of Evidence paragraphs 189-198.

Top

8. The Committee recognises that the Education and Library Boards have a difficult balancing act to perform in meeting their anticipated need for school places, whilst ensuring that resources are used effectively. We concur with the Department's view that schools play an important part in the life of a local community and that it is a difficult decision to close any school, particularly if it serves an isolated rural population. The needs of small urban communities also require consideration. The Committee acknowledges, that the Boards have taken forward the closure and amalgamation of schools: for instance it notes the piloting of an arrangement between two schools in the Garvagh and Coleraine area which aims to consider whether the two schools can operate on a federated basis rather than close one and deprive a small rural community. However, we are concerned that, with over 45,000 surplus places within the school system in Northern Ireland, money is being spent on maintaining vacant places when it could be more usefully directed to supporting classroom provision. The Education and Library Boards need to maintain their efforts to balance the supply and allocation of school places by continuing to bring forward proposals for rationalisation where they are justified in financial and educational terms. We would expect that, over time the high level of surplus places should be substantially reduced and look to the Department to monitor this.

Minutes of Evidence, paragraphs 14 and 88-98.

9. While there is an over-supply of places across the school system, the Committee is aware that the integrated sector suffers from an excess demand for places. We asked the Accounting Officer to what extent the Department has considered the "transformation" of excess places to meet demand within the integrated sector. We were told that the Department intends to create a formal regional group, including the Education and Library Boards and the integrated sector, to review the capacity and potential for transforming places in the controlled and maintained sectors into additional places in the integrated sector. The Committee wish to be kept informed of progress in this area.

Minutes of Evidence, paragraphs 106-114.

Top

10. The Accounting Officer told the Committee that in recent years the Department has tried to address the problem of poor literacy and numeracy skills among school children through such initiatives as early years intervention and school support programmes. However, data on Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 examinations shows that while many pupils are achieving extremely good literacy and numeracy standards, it is disturbing that schools still have substantial ground to make up to meet Departmental targets. Moreover, we find it totally unacceptable that some of the original targets have been reset or had their timescales extended. In our view this did nothing for the cause of raising standards. Proposals from the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment that Key Stage 3 tests should be scrapped are also a cause for concern. We understand that in 2001-02, development and management costs for Key Stage 3 tests amounted to almost £1 million. The Accounting Officer told the Committee that, while he accepted targets must be set, initial targets had been revised because they were based on incomplete data. The Department also indicated that it may be early in 2003 before proposals are brought to the Minister on any change to the Key Stage 3 examinations. However, we were pleased to learn that regardless of what happens to Key Stage 3 tests, the measurement of literacy and numeracy achievement would continue.

C&AG's report, paragraphs 5.6-5.13 and Minutes of Evidence paragraphs 25-37 and 54-56 and Appendix 1.

11. Despite these explanations, the Committee is concerned that the goalposts are simply being moved to conceal a failure to achieve the literacy and numeracy targets expected of schools by the community. It is noteworthy that at a time when targets are being downgraded in Northern Ireland, Key Stage 2 targets have been uplifted in England and Wales. The Department must recognise that it has lost credibility in the area of target setting in relation to literacy and numeracy which is worrying because such a substantial number of school children are failing to meet minimum acceptable standards. It is essential that the Department, the Education and Library Boards and schools take up the challenge of ensuring that every child develops sound literacy and numeracy skills. This challenge must be met for the sake of our children and Northern Ireland's future.

Minutes of Evidence, paragraphs 38-39.

12. It is vital, therefore, that the Department establishes credible and realistic targets and that it sticks with them. Moreover, it cannot be satisfactory that the expectation for the educational achievement of school children in Northern Ireland should be lower than that for the rest of the United Kingdom. Good literacy and numeracy skills are essential for each individual to participate in modern society. To ensure that pupils have the skills that will enable them to make the most of their education, training and employment opportunities, we should be striving to achieve educational attainment levels which are better than the United Kingdom average.

Minutes of Evidence, paragraphs 47-53.

13. Finally, we asked the Accounting Officer about the length of time the post-primary review of education was taking and its costs. He told us that the process of consultation following the Burns report was due to finish at the end of June 2002. After this the Department would be in a position to consider the various inputs and assess how best to move forward. He also told us that, to date, the review has a cost almost £592,000. The Committee will be interested to learn of the decisions reached on the review in due course.

Minutes of Evidence, paragraphs 20-24 and Appendix 1.

Top

14. One way of measuring disaffection among pupils is through the collection of data on school suspensions. The Committee was extremely disappointed to learn that information collected on school suspensions could not be quoted with any degree of rigour because collection procedures lacked standardisation and consistency across the Education and Library Boards. We find it disturbing that for years money was wasted on the collection of meaningless data adding to the bureaucratic burden within the education services. However, we welcome the fact that the Department, the Boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools have produced guidance for schools in relation to the standardisation of information on suspensions and that the Boards will be establishing a database which will categorise suspensions, the reasons for them and their duration. Accurate information on the numbers of children permanently excluded and suspended from schools is vital if we are to grasp the true nature and extent of the problem. What is not measured accurately cannot be managed effectively. We would like an assurance that the Department has reviewed the full range of its statistical requirements in this area and that it is satisfied that it will have sufficiently reliable information to proceed with specific management strategies.

C&AG's report, paragraph 6.6 and Minutes of Evidence paragraphs 124-133

15. The Committee recognises that exceptional circumstances do arise in schools when suspension and even exclusion may be a necessary and appropriate sanction. Where the strategies available to schools fail to improve children's behaviour, suspension or exclusion can remain the only option if the rights of teachers and other pupils to work in a safe and supportive environment are to be protected. In dealing with suspended and excluded pupils, the Committee was told that an extensive support programme is in place which is funded both centrally and through normal school resources. We recognise the importance of properly resourced action in this area because money spent at this stage can help to avoid longer-term social and economic costs: for instance, research suggests that exclusion is predictive of subsequent poor health and involvement in crime. However, the extraordinary costs of dealing with suspended and excluded pupils as compared with the average spent on the non-excluded pupil dramatically underlines the importance of ensuring that value for money is achieved. In the 2000-01 school year, the Department told us that it had spent nearly £3 million on 674 children who were receiving alternative provision outside school or on home tuition. The Education and Library Boards also make provision from within their budgets for such children. This reinforces the importance of good quality management information on which to base decisions. In addition to data on the scale of suspensions and expulsions, the Committee recommends that the publication of an annual compendium of performance indicators should also contain comparative information on the costs per pupil of school exclusions.

Minutes of Evidence, paragraphs 177-187 and 217-230 and Appendix 1.

16. Prevention, of course, is better than cure and maintaining all children in full time mainstream education is not only an educational priority but a social one. Many suspended and excluded pupils are already among the most vulnerable in the community and suspension or exclusion can serve to exacerbate what are already difficult circumstances. The Committee agrees with the C&AG's report that schools should be encouraged to develop whole-school policies which limit disaffection and exclusion and that the Education and Library Boards should monitor schools and intervene to ensure that these policies are introduced.

C&AG's report, paragraphs 6.6-6.7

Top

17. Statements of special educational need let parents know how their child's special educational needs will be met. The Committee questioned the Accounting Officer on why there is such a variation between the Education and Library Boards in issuing these statements. We were told that this can result from the way different Boards interpret the stages of assessing need as set out in the new Code of Practice. We note the assurance given to the Committee that common criteria for assessing need have been agreed by the five Boards and that the broad level of statementing should now be much the same across all the Boards. We acknowledge also that, because a statement will last as long as a pupil is of school age, previous disparities in the level of statementing can take some time to level out. However, as the trigger for a statement is the stage when a child's needs cannot be met by the resources available to the school, the Committee sees no good reason why there should be the degree of disparity, as currently exists, between the South-Eastern Board and the other Boards. We look to the Department to ensure that there is fairness and equity in how the Boards safeguard the most needy children in our schools and that where statements of special educational need are used these do not favour the children of articulate pro-active parents at the expense of the many.

C&AG's report, paragraphs 7.3-7.4 and Minutes of Evidence, paragraphs 199-208.

18. The Department has set a target for the Education and Library Boards to draft statements for children with special educational needs within 18 weeks. The Accounting Officer told us that this can be a difficult service to provide as there is a scarcity of resources in terms of the professional input required as part of the statementing process. In addition, not all the elements involved will be within the control of the Boards as they may have to get medical and/or social services reports. However, the Committee is astonished that the Department and the Boards do not yet have information to show how well the Boards are performing against the 18 week target. It is essential that accurate and reliable data is collected as a matter of urgency. Waiting to see how a Board intends to address a child's special needs can be stressful and worrying. Performance information will establish how prolonged this wait can be and allow the Boards to set targets for improving their performance until they reach the 18 week standard in the Code of Practice.

C&AG's report, paragraphs 7.5-7.6 and Minutes of Evidence, paragraphs 209-216.

Top

19. As a result of Assembly Questions (ACQ 2389/01 and ACQ 2390/01), the Department provided updated information on school spending prior to the evidence session. This data conflicted with statistics that appeared in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. The Committee finds it totally unacceptable that the Boards were unable to provide accurate and up-to-date information for a key Part of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. It should not really be necessary for this Committee to emphasise the importance of timely and accurate information on expenditure. Departments must accept full responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of all data quoted in any Northern Ireland Audit Office report which has been through the normal thorough clearance process.

Minutes of Evidence, paragraphs 134-135.

20. We acknowledge the Accounting Officer's apology for what happened and note his assertion that the discipline of having to produce an annual compendium of performance indicators should ensure that the lesson is learned for the future. It is crucial to the effectiveness of Committee evidence sessions that members can rely on the accuracy of data which Departments have cleared and the Committee would ask the Department of Finance and Personnel to reinforce this point by reminding all Departments of its importance.

Minutes of Evidence, paragraphs 136-144.

21. The Accounting Officer was asked what the justification was for the variations in pupil spending across different Boards and school sectors. The Committee was told that a new unified common funding formula is to replace the seven formulae which currently exist. We note the Accounting Officer's assurance that this will ensure that the needs of pupils will be assessed in a standardised way. The Committee considers that the establishment of a more equitable funding formula also provides the opportunity for extending the use of performance indicators to focus on the linkage between school spending and other factors. Numbers on their own may have little meaning. Therefore, the Committee recommends that, in developing performance information systems, the Boards should ensure that unit cost data is used in conjunction with academic indicators and other factors in order to monitor how efficiently end effectively schools are utilising their resources.

C&AG's report, paragraphs 8.5 and 8.12-8.13 and Minutes of Evidence, paragraphs 145-148.

22. At a time of increasing stringency in education finance, when school budgets are under serious pressure, the Committee considers that the need to create an equitable distribution of funding has become even more important. One anomaly which can have a negative effect on the distribution of resources to individual schools is where, for their own reasons, families choose not to take up their entitlement to free school meals. We asked the Accounting Officer what steps the Department was taking to resolve this issue. We were told that the Department's intention was to include other factors in the assessment of the relative needs of schools which should take account of children who had not taken up their free school meal entitlement. In particular, while there is evidence of a correlation between free school meal entitlement and educational achievement, the Department made the point that it is a proxy measure and not a causal one. As a result, the Department told us that it was looking at the direct use of measures of educational achievement, for example, Key Stage 2 results, as a way of trying to assess the funding needs of schools with greater precision. The Committee welcomes this.

Minutes of Evidence, paragraphs 75-87 and 149-154.

23. In the context of ensuring value for money in educational spending, the Committee noted reports of very large sums being spent on consultants. In answer to AQW 427/01 the Department pointed out that one firm of consultants had received over £4 million since 1998. The Department informed us that consultants have been used largely to provide assistance on Private Finance Initiative and Information Technology projects and to provide financial advice. Nevertheless we are surprised both at the scale of expenditure and the fact that the £4 million paid to the one firm represented 89 per cent of the total consultancy budget since 1998. We welcome the Department's assurance that consultants were engaged using normal public sector contract procedures. The Committee is aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General is currently undertaking an investigation of a major Information Technology project in the Education and Library Boards which involves significant input from consultants and we have asked him to consider the value for money of their use as part of his review.

Minutes of Evidence, paragraphs 99-105.

Top

Members present: Mr Bell (Chairperson)
Ms Armitage
Mr Beggs
Mr Carrick
Mr Close
Mr Dallat
Mr Hilditch
Mr McClelland
Ms Morrice

Mr John Dowdall, Comptroller and Auditor General was examined.

Mr Leo O'Reilly, Treasury Officer of Accounts, was examined.

The Comptroller and Auditor General's report on "Indicators of Educational Performance and Provision" (NIA 48/01), Session 2001-2002 was considered.

Mr G McGinn, Accounting Officer of the Department of Education, Mr S Peover, Deputy Secretary, Department of Education, and Mr J Martin, Chief Executive, Western Education and Library Board, were examined.

Top

****

Members present: Mr Bell (Chairperson)
Ms Armitage
Mr Beggs
Mr Carrick
Mr Close
Mr Hilditch
Ms Morrice
Ms Ramsey

Mr John Dowdall, Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) was further examined

Draft Report (Indicators of Educational Performance and Provision) proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, that the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paras 1 to 3 read and agreed to

Paras 4 to 5.14 postponed

Paras 6 to 15 read and agreed to

Para 16 read and agreed subject to amendment

Paras 17 to 22 read and agreed to

Paras 4 to 5.14 read and agreed subject to changes to be made to reflect amendments agreed in paras 6 to 22.

Top

Members present: Mr Bell (Chairperson)
Ms Armitage
Mr Beggs
Mr Carrick
Mr Close
Mr Hilditch
Mr McClelland
Ms Ramsey

Mr John Dowdall, Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) was further examined

Draft Report (Indicators of Educational Performance and Provision) proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, that the draft Report be read a third time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paras 1 to 3 read and agreed to

Paras 4 to 5.14 postponed

Paras 6 to 23 read and agreed to

Paras 4 to 5.14 read and agreed

Top

****

Wednesday 24 April 2002

Members present:
Mr Bell (Chairperson)
Ms Armitage
Mr Beggs
Mr Carrick
Mr Close
Mr Dallat
Mr Hilditch
Mr McClelland
Ms Morrice

Witnesses:
Mr G McGinn )
Mr S Peover ) Department of Education
Mr J Martin ) Western Education and Library Board

1.

The Chairperson: Good morning. I welcome Mr Gerry McGinn, who is here for his first appearance before the Public Accounts Committee, and Mr Stephen Peover from the Department of Education, and Mr Joseph Martin from the Western Education and Library Board.

2.

Today's topic is the use of performance indicators in the education and library boards. Raising educational standards is one of the Executive's highest priorities, and by providing information on crucial aspects of educational performance and provision, the indicators help identify strengths and weaknesses, thus generating discussion about appropriate improvement strategies.

3.

We wish to consider the information provided by a range of performance indicators, so as to evaluate the relevant strategies across Northern Ireland's five education and library boards. We shall base our questions on the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, but we also have further information provided by your Department to the Northern Ireland Audit Office in part 8 of the report. I shall ask some questions before allowing other Members of the Committee to do the same. I hope to have the meeting finished by around 12 pm and would appreciate brevity from both you and the Members.

4.

Paragraph 1.12 of the Northern Ireland Audit Office report points out the scope for improvement in presenting information about how well the boards and their schools are performing against key measures of success. My impression is that data on educational performance and provision across the education and library boards is not as readily accessible as in other parts of the United Kingdom. What steps is the Department taking to publish regular and reliable information on the performance of the education and library boards, and why have you not done so already?

5.

Mr McGinn: I support the objectives you mentioned regarding raising educational standards, and the importance of using data to help us do so. We previously published league tables for schools, but that has now stopped. The focus is now on data provided to help schools benchmark; and the unit of account on which we have focused is very much the school. We try to get boards of governors, principals and staff of schools to improve them. With each school improving, the system would also improve collectively, and we should raise educational standards overall.

6.

Nevertheless, I found the report very helpful in its use of data from another perspective in relation to the boards. We welcome, and shall seek to implement, the fundamental recommendation.

7.

The Chairperson: Why have you not done so already?

8.

Mr McGinn: We have been using the data to help schools, using what we believe is the most fundamental unit of account - the school and its board of governors. We have also sought to help them through the school support programme, for example, the group one schools initiative. We have tended to examine schools rather than boards.

9.

The Chairperson: My next question relates to part 4 of the report, which deals with school occupancy levels. Despite the potential to add and secure value for money by removing surplus places, the rate of progress across all boards has been less than spectacular to date. Indeed, paragraph 4.8 notes that a quarter of all primary schools have occupancy rates of less than 61%. Paragraph 4.10 details surplus places of over 23,000 in the primary sector; and over 12,000 surplus places in secondary schools. Would you outline the main obstacles to achieving a better match between the supply and demand of school places?

10.

Mr McGinn: I accept the overall issue. It might be helpful to examine primary schools first before moving on to secondary schools, as there are particular issues for each. In Northern Ireland an obvious issue concerns how sparse rural communities are served vis-à-vis urban counterparts. Demographics are also important, and falling numbers will become more of an issue over the next 10 years. There is also the overall issue of open enrolment and providing choice, which means that this particular issue comes to the fore. In the post-primary sector, we have to deal with selection and the denominational issues. There are particular communities in cities that want to be served by their own denomination school. Those are the background issues that come into play.

11.

We have looked at schools of a particular size - small primary and secondary schools, in particular, and my colleagues may want to comment on that. We have looked at how communities are served by those small schools, and also looked at mergers and amalgamations, and what may be appropriate. Inevitably, those schools are important to the local communities, and this is an important local issue. Consultation and the creation of development proposals take time, and people are committed to retaining schools locally.

12.

The other element that comes into play is the need for capital investment when those mergers take place, which probably has not been the overriding issue. The main issues have been local communities wanting to retain their local schools, and the choice they want available for the local community.

13.

The Chairperson: I am aware of this in my constituency of Lagan Valley. This is currently an issue in Hillsborough, for example. However, I need to ask you these questions to get the Department's official view on the record.

14.

Mr Peover: We have closed around 200 schools in the past 20 years, removing approximately 28,000 surplus places out of the system, but it is a process that requires consultation and dialogue. The statutory procedures require consultation with local communities. Schools play an important part in the life of a local community, and it is a serious decision to close a school in a given area, particularly if it serves an isolated community. The sparse, dispersed rural population in Northern Ireland and the segregated and selective system of post-primary education contribute to the multiplication of the number of schools.

15.

We must also bear in mind that there are cyclical movements in population. The population in an area ages, there are fewer children, the school population drops, young families move in, the population grows again and the school population grows. It is not a simple linear development, so you must have an eye on the long-term population projections for a given area and the changes in demography. It is complicated, but we are committed to reducing the number of surplus places. We have taken action, with dialogue taking place with the boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) about it. There are policies and procedures in place, and each proposal is treated on its own merits.

16.

The Chairperson: I am aware of those issues, but I want to get your official view on the record.

17.

Mr McGinn: It might be helpful if we relate Mr Peover's comments to those of Mr Martin. The Department is working with the boards on this issue, identifying schools of a particular size and the possible options.

18.

Mr Martin: I do not know if you will be coming back to this issue later on, but I can only illustrate what the permanent secretary has been speaking about with what the Western Board is doing, which will be replicated across the other boards. Each board is looking carefully at the provision in both primary and post-primary sectors. Our board set up a working group which last year looked at how best we can support schools in the communities where they are needed, and how best we can reduce surplus places, where appropriate. As a result of that - and this is important - several schools have already closed. However, this happens much more readily when schools decide of their own accord that they are no longer viable. As Members will know, it is difficult to take on a community.

19.

Our Board currently has two situations. The first is where two controlled secondary schools realised of their own accord that it is in their best long-term interests to come together and provide a new school. We have another situation where the board and board of governors realised clearly that this particular school is no longer viable. We have just published a development proposal, but it has run into significant opposition. We are trying actively and positively to take account of the need to sustain viable primary and post-primary schools in local communities while reducing surplus places.

20.

The Chairperson: Paragraph 5.25 of the report contains recommendations for remedying perceived inequalities caused by the selection of children at 11 years of age. I do not want to delve into the pros and cons of the selection process, as the Committee has no remit to deal with policy issues. However, the review is in its second year, and there appears to be no sign of consensus. When will the review be concluded, and how much has it cost to date?

21.

Mr McGinn: After the publication of the Burns Report on 24 October 2001, the independent review body held a series of information seminars. The review body stood down at the end of the year, and the Department set up a consultation process, which will finish on 28 June. Every possible attempt has been made to engage all parts of the community and the various interested sectors in Northern Ireland. The Department recognises that community groups and others have a deep interest in schooling, and that successful schools are a coalition of staff, parents and community - where learning is valued, the buildings are respected, and children and young people are encouraged. Therefore, consultation on the review is widespread. After 28 June the Department will be in a position to consider the various inputs we have received from businesses, community groups, various political parties and other interested groups and assess how best to move forward. The cost of the review has been made public through Assembly questions.

22.

Mr Peover: There are two levels of cost. The Department has given figures for the cost of the Burns review. However, I do not have figures for that cost together with the cost of the current work and consultation.

23.

The Chairperson: Can the Committee have those figures?

24.

Mr Peover: Yes. I will make a note to provide you with those figures.

25.

Mr Dallat: The Audit Office report is one of the most important reports to have come before the Public Accounts Committee. Figure 12, on page 31, deals with Key Stage 2 results in English and mathematics at Level 4 or above. Several of the boards' results fall well short of the targets. When I first raised this issue, the Department's reaction was to extend the time limit for achieving Level 4 or above at Key Stage 2. Given that one in four people have serious literacy and numeracy problems, which begin early in life, would it not have been more honest for the Department to admit that, for whatever reason, it had failed to achieve its targets? I do not necessarily blame teachers for that. Playing for time simply means that more of our precious, young children will leave primary school with literacy and numeracy skills below the levels that the Department has set.

26.

Mr McGinn: I recognise the point about the percentage of people leaving school with an unacceptable level of literacy. I welcome the report from the Department for Employment and Learning, which helps to focus attention on that issue. I referred to engaging with the business community, for example, on the post-primary review, because literacy and numeracy are linked to employability. We have introduced interventions, starting with early years, to help to reach the targets. In addition, we have invested much more in that area, and I hope that this will get children off to a better start, increase their motivation to learn, and improve their sense of worth and self-esteem. Inevitably, the results will take time to feed through to Key Stages 2 and 3. The Department of Education is committed to raising literacy and numeracy levels and making other improvements, and its initiatives help to demonstrate that.

27.

We would have preferred not to have to reset the targets, but the original ones were based on one year's data, which was incomplete. The initial process was not as robust as one would have desired, and there have been changes, because the Department has had access to more up-to-date data. Improvements have been made. As the Department explained to the Education Committee, we are trying to set targets that are challenging, but still sufficiently realistic to be attainable and to maintain schools' motivation to work towards them. We are making progress towards those targets, but we would have preferred not to alter them.

28.

Mr Dallat: So, the Department got the targets for primary schools wrong. Page 33 of the report deals with targets for secondary schools, and it appears that the Department got those targets wrong also. I submitted questions for answer by the Minister, and the result was a reduction of the targets, not once but twice. Surely, that removes any credibility of these assessments, and seriously undermines public confidence in them, which is critical.

29.

Mr McGinn: The Department has maintained the vast majority of targets and continues to pursue them, and has been able to ensure that targets over which it has more direct control - for example, targets relating to pre-school places - have been met. A challenge in that area is that children at this point have not had the benefit of the initiatives that the current cohort enjoys. The process for setting the targets was flawed on account of the insufficient data that was available at that time.

30.

Mr Peover: The important point is that the original targets were based on a single year's data, which was incomplete. The Department accepts that targets must be set. There has been encouraging progress in schools' achievements at Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3. In 2000-01, 71·8% of pupils across Northern Ireland achieved level 5 or above in English, and 68·9% attained that level in mathematics. By contrast, the corresponding statistics for the two previous years are 67·7% and 70·1% in English, and 67% in mathematics the following year. So the long-term trend fluctuates, and it must be examined. We think that we will achieve the targets that have been set. They are realistic, given where the pupils are coming from and the extent of special educational needs in our system, which involves some 20% of schoolchildren who require additional support.

31.

Mr Dallat: Of course I welcome the improvements, and I do not dispute them. This issue is a major focus of the Assembly and the public. We do not dispute that at Key Stage 3, children are at the most critical point in their lives because they are about to choose GCSE subjects, which could impact on their future. You have already agreed that employers are demanding higher basic skills from their employees. Surely by lowering their targets not once but twice, the Department did nothing for the cause of raising standards.

32.

Mr McGinn: The Department continues to commit itself to the initiatives that have been put in place, and, more importantly, to reappraise those initiatives by making sure that they are effective inputs that will have a positive impact by the time we have cohorts coming through, and also intervention through the school support programme with post-primary schools as well. Everyone only gets one opportunity to go through, and it is not sufficient for us to recognise that providing early years will benefit those who are four or five today. We also have a responsibility to those who are 14, 15 or 16, and there are programmes in place seeking to do that.

33.

The ongoing commitment to appraise and reappraise our intervention and support is actively pursued with the boards in reviewing what is working well, what is not working so well, and what could be improved. The process by which those targets have been set, as Mr Peover has said, has affected target resetting.

34.

Mr Dallat: It is a coincidence that recently the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessments (CCEA) recommended an end to those tests. If one was being cynical, one could say that that was a handy way of getting out of that problem. However, what is more important - and important for our report - is to know what the cost of introducing those tests would be. We cannot quantify the trouble that teachers have had in introducing them, and to find that the examining board is recommending an end to them merits a mention in our report. It now looks likely that the scheme will be scrapped, and it would be interesting to know how much money we invested in it.

35.

The Chairperson: Could you provide that information?

36.

Mr Peover: We will see if we can get costs of the development and management of the Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 assessment arrangements. The CCEA is proposing that the external test element of the Key Stage 3 assessment should be removed. However, there would still be an assessment of pupils by teachers using their professional judgement and their own instruments for assessment, as well as the material provided by CCEA, although that would not be compulsory.

37.

We do not regard that as a way of avoiding setting targets for, or being criticised for failing to achieve targets on, literacy and numeracy. The matter has been put out for consultation with the CCEA, and they will have to come forward with proposals to the Minister in due course, and he will make a decision about it. We still regard the measurement of achievement of children on literacy and numeracy as extremely important. That will continue, regardless of what happens in Key Stage 3 assessments. We must have some way of assessing children's ability to read and write adequately.

38.

Mr Dallat: Perhaps we could deal with that issue on a broader basis. In England and Wales the Education Secretary has set tough new targets to raise standards of literacy and numeracy. Those standards are that by 2004, 85% of 11-year-olds will reach the expected level in English and mathematics. By contrast, paragraph 5.6 of the report states that the target in Northern Ireland for mathematics is only 80% by 2004, while the target for English has been downgraded to a modest 77%. Do you agree that by setting less demanding targets you are again failing to address the serious problem that 250,000 people between the ages of 16 and 64, who have gone through the education system, have been failed by it?

39.

Mr Peover: We discussed that point at the last Public Accounts Committee hearing. It is unacceptable that large numbers of people come out of the education system with less than adequate skills in reading, writing and mathematics. We are undertaking reviews of our literacy and numeracy strategies and our school support programme, and we have, in draft form, reports from the groups who took forward those reviews. I chaired the steering group, which includes boards, the CCMS and CCEA, looking at those issues. We want to look at the setting of targets in the light of the outcome of those reviews, the targets being set elsewhere, and the progress towards our current targets. Target setting is a central issue on the agenda for the cross-agency group that looks at school improvements, and we will not ignore what is happening elsewhere.

40.

Mr Dallat: I will turn to the variations between the boards, which you must find worrying. What steps have the Department taken to determine why that is the case, and what action has been taken to disseminate good practice findings to the boards?

41.

Mr McGinn: There is a very active programme between the Department and the boards, both individually and collectively. I regularly meet with chief executives and senior members of the team, individually with the boards and collectively as a group. We have such issues on the agenda, and I am mindful of the commitments that we have made through the public service agreement (PSA) and the service delivery agreement (SDA). We are committed to meeting targets and ensuring that there are processes in place to make sure that we are making progress at the required rate. Structures will be put in place to disseminate and share best practice. One of the benefits is to use the data in this report as a gateway to our discussions.

42.

Mr Martin: I would like to make two points. There is close collaboration between the boards in sharing good practice, and, particularly, around the key areas of literacy, numeracy and school support programmes. Boards are working closely to ensure that they have common strategies, that they are targeting the same objectives, and that the support they are providing is best geared to meet the schools' needs.

43.

Another very important point is that the data is raw. In the report the Audit Office states that it is important to put the data in the context of social background, and one of the elements set out is the proportion of free school meals. A school could perform poorly overall when it is compared to other schools in Northern Ireland, yet, if you take the school's circumstances into account, the pupils may be performing much better than in other schools where the raw data gives you a very good score. It is vital to contextualise the data, and to look at it in the light of free school meals and all other circumstances. Otherwise you are not comparing like with like. In that respect, the audit report has done us a great service as it continually points to the critical importance of this throughout every element of the report.

44.

Mr Dallat: The provision of free school meals does not necessarily relate directly to poor performance. I concur with you that this is one of the most important documents to be produced, and for someone in public life, there is a feast of material here that can be used. However, it is astonishing that your Department did not produce this document; it was produced by the Audit Office. In the future can we be sure that this will not happen? Will you produce the raw statistics and allow the people who make the decisions to base them on factual information, and not leave it to the Audit Office?

45.

Mr McGinn: The core recommendation of the report is one that we fully accept and recognise the value of. We will consult with the Assembly's Committee for Education, the boards and other relevant parties to ensure that we quickly put ourselves in a position of being able to provide an annual compendium, which will help us achieve the objectives that the Public Accounts Committee has clearly articulated, and as a way of having openness, transparency and seeking to generate improvement.

46.

The Chairperson: I would welcome that.

47.

Mr Dallat: We want to know why there are variations between the board areas so that corrective steps can be taken. One of the benefits of the Assembly is the opportunity for elected Members to prioritise the needs of the people they represent. I am sure that you have not missed that literacy and numeracy, in the life of the Assembly, have risen to the top - and rightly so. There is a clear acknowledgement, not just in basic human rights, but also in the ability to find jobs in a new environment where skills are demanded. Given everything that has happened over the past few years - the changing and downgrading of the targets and the lack of information - can we be satisfied that, in terms of value for money, the Department now has its house in order and that you can play a critical role in achieving the objectives of the Assembly, which is to eradicate illiteracy and innumeracy?

48.

Mr McGinn: The objective of addressing literacy and numeracy is one that we share with you. Over the past number of years we have tried to address it in a variety of ways, such as intervening in the early years programme so that that experience is much improved; improving the assessment processes and intervening through the school support programme; and the group one schools initiative, which is targeted at a small group of schools with a particular set of needs. We also address this in a variety of other ways, which do not grab headlines. We are looking, and continuing to look, at improving teacher education and everything within the infrastructure of the system, which is important for us to achieve our aspirations. The Department has had a series of interventions, and we continue to ensure that we are reappraising those and that they continue to be relevant and are making an impact.

49.

We welcome the opportunity to create data in the public domain that will improve the quality of discussion, and improve the openness and transparency with which these issues - which are important for Northern Ireland, as they are a priority in the Programme for Government - can be properly debated in a fully informed fashion. This will be good for all of us, as they continue to engage interest, generate the type of debate that we continue to have, and ensure that resources continue to be properly used to achieve all of the aspirations that we share for the education service.

50.

The Chairperson: The question was are you satisfied? I take it from your answer that you are.

51.

Mr McGinn: I am satisfied. However, like everything in life, we continue to reappraise regularly. One thing I can reassure the Committee about is that the Department is not complacent. The Department is committed to ensuring that it continues to achieve value for money and improve standards.

52.

Mr Peover: That is why we are undertaking reviews of the literacy and numeracy strategies. We have several years' experience now. It costs a considerable amount of money, and we are determined to achieve value for money and, more importantly, to ensure that the strategies benefit children. That issue prompted the reviews.

53.

Inter-board literacy and numeracy steering groups have been set up to share practice amongst board officers. In addition, we have created a best practice initiative under the school improvement programme, which allows schools that are trying to take a different approach and engaging in good practice to bid for resources to embed that good practice further in their own school and to share it with others. That is done on paper and on the website, where schools can look at their colleagues' initiatives. In particular, people have responded to the need to share good practice across Northern Ireland.

54.

Mr Dallat: I am sure you agree that the real cost of a failure in provision to the 250,000 people who have difficulty reading and writing is greater than any financial expense. As the goal posts have been moved since the report was published, and CCEA now proposes changes to the way that tests are done, it might be useful for the Committee to have some data on that for its report.

55.

The Chairperson: Can the Committee have some data on that matter?

56.

Mr Peover: The consultation on the CCEA's proposal will run until the end of October, so it will be some time before the outcome is analysed and proposals for future arrangements are brought to the Minister. It will be the end of this year, or early next year, before we have any feedback from that process.

57.

Mr Carrick: With regard to pre-school provision, I refer you to figure 2 on page 15 of the report, which demonstrates the variation between boards in the provision of pre-school education. Parents in some locations have more choice than parents in other locations. What mechanisms do boards use to ensure that parents are regularly consulted on their needs and preferences, so that their views can be taken into account when options for pre-school provision are reviewed?

58.

Mr McGinn: First, figure 2 demonstrates a particular anomaly, and there is a piece of history behind that figure. Previous programmes, such as Making Belfast Work, were based on the problem of social deprivation. Therefore, historically, provision in Belfast was ahead of the other boards. The current programmes were only embarked upon in the past four years. It is important to remember that when looking at figure 2 because it explains why the level of provision in Belfast is different from that of other areas.

59.

Mr Martin: Those tables apply to 1999-2000, and the current provision is considerably in excess of that. There was limited choice, and only 46% of pre- school children had a school place in 1997. That figure is now 85%, and will exceed 90% in 2003. Therefore, there will be places for all those who wish to avail of them. Although there are admissions criteria for nursery schools, those will not be as important as before, given the widespread availability of places. In most cases this will enable parents to place their child in the nursery or pre-school of their choice.

60.

Mr Peover: The projection for March 2003 is that 96% of children will have access to a funded place in a pre-school of whichever type. The target was 85%, and that has been exceeded. Some board areas had to catch up in provision with others before the initiative began. In the timescale for the initiative we expect to overachieve in the target for pre-school provision. Effectively, all children whose parents want them to have a pre-school place should have access to one.

61.

Mr Carrick: Perhaps you will give us the up-to-date figures for 2001 and 2002. What mechanisms are in place for boards to consult regularly with parents?

62.

Mr Martin: In the case of the pre-school expansion programme, our board held meetings with communities in every area to ensure that the provision envisaged would meet their requirements, and those meetings were well attended. There were meetings with schools' boards of governors and public meetings to ensure that people had access to a wide range of information about the provision.

63.

Mr Carrick: Were those one-off meetings or is it planned to hold them annually?

64.

Mr Martin: They were planned when the provision was being established. It is then a matter for each nursery provider - for example, the school or the voluntary playgroup - to make appropriate arrangements to advise those wishing to avail of the places.

65.

Mr Carrick: Do the boards not proactively advise the providers that this would be good practice and policy?

66.

Mr Martin: The boards have guidelines that inform boards of governors on applicable criteria and steps to deal with parental issues.

67.

Mr Carrick: Part 5 of the report focuses on the educational attainment levels of pupils in primary and secondary schools. We know less about the development of children in nursery schools. Are systems in place to assess the value of nursery provision, and to pass that information on to primary schools?

68.

Mr Peover: There is no testing of children entering or leaving nursery education, although there is baseline assessment on children entering primary schools. There are well-established processes by which nursery schools pass on information on pupils to the receiving primary school. Most nursery schools, including voluntary and private schools, have arrangements with the primary school to be attended, and in May or June children are taken to the school to meet the teacher. There is no formal assessment of children in nursery education. There is, however, a focus on improving their social and personal skills, play skills, et cetera. Curricular guidelines are laid down for pre-school provision, and all provision is inspected and reported on by the inspectorate. There are requirements for the qualifications of staff in pre-school settings. We can indeed remove a setting's entitlement to funded places if we find that provision is not up to standard. Those sorts of controls are exercised over the pre-school sector.

69.

Mr Carrick: Is the Department satisfied with the quality and consistency of such information covering all boards, and does it review that regularly?

70.

Mr Peover: There is a very regular inspection process, and in the main it has revealed the settings to be of satisfactory quality.

71.

Mr Carrick: So there is no plan to review the system? Are you happy with the guidelines?

72.

Mr Peover: We shall obviously examine the guidelines in the light of experience, and as all children are included in the programme. Pilots are underway - initially in the Belfast board area, but now all boards are involved - to examine the effectiveness of the early years education programme, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. There is a development and review process on the issue, and more generally the pre-school inspection programme will continue indefinitely.

73.

Mr Carrick: Does the 96% coverage you are to achieve not mean that more children will benefit from pre-school education, rendering some sort of consistent assessment for all boards vital?

74.

Mr Peover: There is international research on the long-term benefits of effective pre-school and nursery education. We certainly hope that, as an important part of our initiatives for tackling underachievement, it will yield benefits. It is difficult to disentangle the effects of nursery or pre-school provision received from the age of four from later interventions such as the quality of teaching provision in schools or literacy and numeracy support programmes. They all contribute to such measures as GCSE performance. Quite what improvement can be generated by any one element is very difficult to assess. However, we have an overall view of a series of initiatives contributing to long-term improvement in achievement for all our children, and those include pre-school education.

75.

Mr Carrick: Perhaps I might move on to the issue of pupil entitlement to free school meals, which my Colleague, John Dallat, already touched on. There seems to be a philosophy that free school meals mean social deprivation and negative educational outcomes, but that view has been challenged in certain quarters. I refer you to paragraph 5.9, where it points out that pupil entitlement to free school meals is used as a measure of relative social deprivation. While I realise that free school meals are one such indicator of social deprivation, I am aware that, in many instances, pupils eligible for free school meals do not take them up for what we must assume are valid reasons. Does that have an adverse effect on school funding? Schools in the controlled sector in my own area seem to suffer because families of eligible children choose not to take up their entitlement to free school meals, and the areas around those schools seem to suffer as a result. What steps is the Department taking to encourage greater uptake of free school meals where the entitlement exists?

76.

Mr Peover: A wealth of evidence shows a strong correlation between free meal entitlement in a school and overall levels of achievement. The argument is not that an individual child entitled to a free school meal is necessarily disadvantaged educationally. Some bright children are entitled to free school meals. However, there is a correlation at school level - and more generally at board and regional levels - between free school meals entitlement and overall levels of achievement.

77.

The Department recognises that it is a proxy measure rather than a direct measure, and a correlation, not a causal issue. Some time ago, there was a consultation on common local management of schools (LMS) funding arrangements. In that consultation, the Department proposed using measures of educational attainment - Key Stage 2 in this case - as a way of providing measures of both social disadvantage, through free school meals entitlement, and educational disadvantage, through Key Stage 2 achievements. Post-primary schools that receive children who have poor results at Key Stage 2 would get increased funding. Likewise, there would be an impact on the primary school. The Department recognises this as an issue. Free school meals entitlement is a useful measure of disadvantage, but it is not the only one. The consultation document proposed using educational measures, as well as social disadvantage measures.

78.

Your second question was about increasing take-up of free school meals. That is quite difficult as there may be many reasons why people might not wish to take up their entitlement. However the Department hopes that, by looking other factors, the data will include those children who have not taken up their entitlement, for whatever reason.

79.

Mr Carrick: Do you accept that there has been an adverse effect on funding for some schools?

80.

Mr Peover: If people do not claim entitlements, it is difficult for us to know the extent of the problem. It is not a comment on the performance, or likely performance of an individual child, it is a proxy for the overall performance of a group of children in a school over time. It is desirable to have an educational measure of disadvantage, and that is what the Department is trying to achieve. Unfortunately, there is a risk of creating a perverse incentive. I do not want to extend this discussion, as I am conscious of the time limit.

81.

The Chairperson: Mr Peover, you must take on board this important point.

82.

Mr Peover: Yes. We want to create a system that recognises disadvantage but does not encourage it. We do not want school funding to depend on poor achievement - that would be a perverse incentive. We are trying to find a system that recognises the problem but does not compound it.

83.

Mr Carrick: Do you have any research material on the impact of funding linked only to free school meals?

84.

Mr Peover: No. There is none that I am aware of.

85.

Mr Carrick: Do you have any plans to examine that subject?

86.

Mr Peover: As I said, we are hoping to change the system by creating a twin-track approach to measuring disadvantage. I am not sure whether it would be possible to do a retrospective research, but we are hopeful that the new arrangements will pick up the disadvantage in both sectors. There is considerable data that shows that free school meals entitlement is a robust indicator of educational disadvantage. However, I must stress that we are not talking about individual children; we are talking about a cohort of children.

87.

The Chairperson: The Committee will keep a watching brief on that issue.

88.

Mr Close: You touched on school occupancy levels. As I understand it, all boards share the same policy framework. However, the Audit Office report shows that some boards achieve better value for money than others. For example, paragraph 4.11 says that surplus places "are particularly pronounced in the Belfast Board." To what extent is the variation among board areas and school sectors a reflection of the failure of some boards to make the necessary, and contentious, decisions to eliminate surplus school places through closures and mergers?

89.

Mr McGinn: I am mindful of the issue and the numbers that are in the report. You referred to paragraph 4.11. One issue that arises in Belfast is the various community divides in the city. There have been significant population shifts over time, leading to two impacts. One is that schools that were previously fully occupied and well attended have been left down in numbers because that particular community is smaller than it once was. The community still values having the school available for its particular community, albeit the numbers are not what they were previously. Secondly, the movements in population have also created demands in other parts of the city, to which the education service has responded.

90.

A particular issue is created when selection and the other choices that are available are taken together. The board recognises that action is necessary to consider what can be done. As Mr Martin mentioned, the process is less contentious if the communities recognise that a school is not as viable because numbers have dropped, and it might be better to explore other solutions. Where communities do not recognise that, or feel very strongly that they want to retain a school because it is an integral part of a community, it is certainly more difficult. However, progress has been made with schools that have merged or have closed, although it is quite a difficult process.

91.

Mr Close: I take your points, but was the general public aware before the report was produced that there were 23,000 or 24,000 surplus primary school places and over 12,000 surplus secondary school places? What if the general public is not aware of the extent of the problem? We should focus on trying to ensure that resources go to the classroom. A surplus requirement means that money is not going into the classroom. Education, like everything else, is suffering from scarce resources. In many respects, it is all very well being aware of the problem, and the general public is becoming more conscious of it, but does the Department have targets aimed at reducing those figures? Is the Department actively pursuing those targets, are they realistic, and is the Department meeting them?

92.

Mr McGinn: In my experience, I have found that the broader community, even when it accepts the issue, feels very strongly about certain issues. The public may not be as aware, given the numbers that are quoted in the report, but there are a couple of particular cases that we are currently considering where the communities have very strong feelings even though the school roll has dramatically dropped. People tend to see it in terms of their own community - the micro rather than the macro, if I can put it that way - and I can understand why particular issues have arisen. It is a human/logistical issue. Mr Martin will talk about the particular cases, and then we can look at the overall targets and process through which we are seeking to address the issue.

93.

Mr Martin: Mr Close raises an interesting point about targets. If the Department were to set a target, it would have to be a target for each board and for schools in the CCMS sector. For example, if a target was set for our board, it is vital that that target is based on the available baseline information, the current situation, and the particular circumstances. If realistic targets are not set, there is no way of meeting them. For instance, the Western Board has published a development proposal to close a secondary school. That secondary school has an approved enrolment of 500 places. If that proposal goes through, 500 places will be removed at the stroke of a pen. We could also have a target of 500 places, looking at several small primary schools. If those primary schools closed, that would achieve 100 places. Each situation must be looked at individually. My point about the secondary school is that the decision must be made if that school is needed and viable, and the board is facing up to that. However, to set a target that the Western Board should reduce its number of places in the secondary controlled sector by 500 might be wildly unrealistic, and may, or may not, be achievable.

94.

I can think of another situation where two schools realised of their own accord that there is a demographic issue. Although they are viable now, they will not be in the future, and they have made that decision themselves. If the board or Department had tried to impose that decision, I would imagine that there would be fierce resistance. It would be almost impossible because, as always, there would be all kinds of political difficulties, et cetera. We must be realistic about this and continue pushing as hard as possible to get schools, boards of governors and communities to face up to what is in the best educational interests of their pupils, while simultaneously recognising the realities that exist.

95.

Mr Close: The Chairperson will be able to back me in this: sometimes you do not help your own case when you close what people consider to be viable schools because the categorisation of getting money is drawn into it. You may be dealing with a school that is in dire need of replacement because it is falling down around the pupils, and is a health and safety risk. You then give the impression of bullying a smaller school in the same area into submission, as happened in the Lagan Valley constituency. An exercise must be carried out making the information available so that the general public can be aware of the extent of the problem. There have been many deficiencies in the past. There have been mismatches between provision and requirement, and we are seeking a reassurance that, through targeting or other means, those past deficiencies will not be repeated in the future. I hope that you can satisfy the Committee, the general public, and that this is what you are working towards.

96.

Mr Peover: The removal of surplus places from the school system is a problem that we have recognised for a long time, and it is one that the Audit Office has drawn our attention to repeatedly. We are well aware of the problem. Our approach has not been to set percentage reduction targets in surplus places, but the removal of what we regard as unviable schools from the school system. In 1994, we asked the boards and CCMS to look at every primary school that had fewer than 60 pupils and every secondary school that had fewer than 300 pupils. Below those numbers, it is difficult for a school to provide a full educational diet for the pupils they serve. It is a difficult task for teachers. The boards and CCMS looked at all the schools in their sectors that did not match those figures.

97.

There is also value in looking at surplus places. Often you cannot remove surplus places in a particular school because they are part of a wider complex - the complex as a whole still being a viable school serving a viable population. However, the school may have been built for a population of 500 pupils when there are now only 300 in the area. It is difficult physically to remove surplus places. There are often mismatches around the growth and decline of populations in certain areas. A school that was built for 300 may now need to cater for 500 pupils, and there are many temporary classrooms. It would be valuable to consider a measure of surplus capacity and to look individually at schools that do not match up to what is regarded as the appropriate educational size to deliver an appropriate curriculum for pupils.

98.

We have a process of review, and the boards have taken forward closures and amalgamations energetically. We have looked at other ways of dealing with difficulties, especially in rural areas. We are currently running a pilot scheme of a federation arrangement in the maintained sector in the Garvagh and Coleraine area. This is to consider whether two schools can operate as a federated arrangement rather than close one and deprive a small rural community of a school. There are several initiatives going on. However, it would be useful to look at surplus places as an issue in its own right, as well as looking at what we regard as non-viable schools.

99.

Mr Close: My final point concerns value for money, and the broader context of how education money is spent. I must register my alarm at the reply that was given to written question AQW 427/01, which pointed out that in the last three years the education sector spent over £4 million in consultancy fees to one consultancy firm alone. Educationalists are supposed to be the great providers. They are supposed to know something, because they are charged with educating our children, and here they are spending £4 million on outside advice. What type of consultancy advice was given?

100.

Mr McGinn: I would need to refer back in order to answer your question. However, we have clear guidelines around the use of consultants, which is set out in our booklet and details the basis for using consultants and the tendering process.

101.

Mr Peover: We tend to use consultancy for the provision of schools that do not come under the aegis of the Department; for example, those provided under the private finance initiative (PFI) or public private procurement (PPP), where we need specialist legal or financial advice. We use it in relation to IT projects, where we do not have the in-house skills to develop solutions or quality assure the proposals coming from within the system. We would rarely use consultants on an educational issue. We would occasionally invite speakers to conferences or contact educational experts in England on certain issues, but the bulk of consultancy support is of a management nature, and concerns matters such as procurement or IT development.

102.

Mr Close: There are many consultancy firms that deal with the aspects that you have referred to. I find it even more alarming that 89% - £3·8 million - was paid to PricewaterhouseCoopers in that period. Can you satisfy this Committee, and thus the general public and the taxpayers, that proper tender procedures were adhered to, as 89% is a lot to go to one firm? Are you satisfied that you are getting value for money for that type of expenditure, bearing in mind the financial deficiencies in the education sector?

103.

Mr Peover: All our exercises require tendering, and they are managed in co-ordination with the Government Purchasing Agency (GPA). It gives us advice on tendering procedures, and helps us to bring the specification together, to receive, examine and score the tenders and award the contracts. It is all managed in accordance with normal procurement rules. The process should be effective and fair.

104.

Mr Close: What have those people been getting per day?

105.

Mr Peover: I do not have that information to hand, but I will ensure that the Committee receives it.

106.

Ms Morrice: I declare an interest as I am a member of the integrated education fund. I would like to follow up on Mr Close's questions by talking about integrated education, which we have not focused on today. Can you determine what percentage of surplus places is the result of the segregated education system? Have the Department considered integrated education as a solution to the problem, or even transformation?

107.

Mr McGinn: The fundamental issue is parental choice and open enrolment. The choice that we provide is related to surplus places to the extent that we seek to provide a range of choice that the community wants for itself. That range of provision could be integrated, Irish- medium or one of the traditional alternatives. The creation of new schools impacts on local communities and can affect enrolment in schools that may have been popular.

108.

Ms Morrice: That sounded like a politician's answer. Is the Department pro-actively encouraging integrated education or transformation?

109.

Mr McGinn: Changes to lower the viability criteria, which Mr Peover will talk about, make it easier for local communities to establish integrated schools, thus providing additional choice.

110.

Mr Peover: It is a complicated process because of the many options available. Transformation is an important strand of the Department's policy to develop the integrated sector, because it recognises that there are a finite number of children in the community. Ideally, they should be served in the smallest number of schools possible, while maintaining adequate education and effectiveness and efficiency.

111.

There is a policy commitment to pluralism in the system, and the Department wants to develop the integrated sector and the Irish-medium sector. In pursuance of that, we do consider transformation opportunities. The Department has been working with all education partners, including the boards, to determine mechanisms by which the capacity for transformation can be assessed on a strategic basis for Northern Ireland. On a board-by-board basis, it has been considering the planning of provision, including plans for potential closures.

112.

Ms Morrice: Demand for such schools is much higher than provision. Obviously, the Department is not facilitating parental choice.

113.

Mr Peover: There are no surplus places in the integrated sector - there is excess demand. The Department intends to create a formal regional group, involving the boards, the Transferor Representatives' Council, the Department, and the integrated sector, to review the capacity and potential for transformation as a means to provide additional places in that sector. The boards have developed policies on integrated education and transformation, and the Department is aware of an increasing number of transformations. Therefore, transformation is an important strand in the Department's policy.

114.

The Department is keen to promote the creation of units in the Irish-medium sector, rather than freestanding schools - a policy that has met with some considerable success. As those units are mainly in the maintained sector, discussions have taken place between the Department, CCMS and interested Irish-medium bodies on how best to develop units in that sector. For example, a post-primary unit will open in St Catherine's College, Armagh in September to provide Irish-medium provision for several primary schools in that area, rather than the freestanding arrangement that would have happened in the past.

115.

Ms Morrice: The report focuses on indicators of educational performance in certain sectors. Do you agree that similar research on the integrated sector would be valuable? If so, would the Department make that data available to the Committee?

116.

Mr Peover: Do you mean data relating to places?

117.

Ms Morrice: I mean data on educational indicators and performance in the integrated sector.

118.

Mr Peover: The Department's policy is to refrain from publishing data relating to individual schools. Data is available in schools' annual reports and prospectuses, but the Minister decided that, for the reasons that we discussed earlier, it would be invidious to publish data in its raw form.

119.

Ms Morrice: The integrated sector should be included in such data provision.

120.

Mr Peover: There is no reason for the Department's not including data on any of the sectors.

121.

Mr McGinn: That is on a consolidated basis.

122.

The Chairperson: Are you satisfied with that answer?

123.

Ms Morrice: I am - the integrated sector will be included in further research to gather data similar to that in the report.

124.

Paragraph 6.1 of the report states that by 2004 the number of pupils suspended from secondary school should be reduced by 20% of the 2000-01 figure. It is worrying to look at paragraph 6.3 and 6.6 and see that the statistical data relating to suspensions was fundamentally suspect and could not be quoted with any rigour. What are you doing to ensure that accurate and consistent information is collected by the boards in order that achievement of those targets can be accurately monitored? Also, what about the exclusions, which are not included?

125.

Mr McGinn: Mr Martin will talk about what is being put in place. We recognise that the quality of the data must be reliable to enable us to have better and fully informed discussion. At the heart of this issue are the multiple suspensions and also individuals who need a particular form of support. That is something that is being actively pursued, and Mr Martin will comment on it.

126.

Mr Martin: I welcome the relationship that Ms Morrice has made between the importance of good baseline information and the setting of targets. If targets are set without a proper statistical framework, then the chances of achieving them are clearly reduced.

127.

The information we have about suspensions is unsatisfactory because it has not been collected in a format that is meaningful. For example, when you look at the number of suspensions, how many of those are for one day, two days or three days, and what is the relationship between the number of suspensions and the number of pupils who are suspended? To ensure that there is consistency in the collection of data in the first instance, the five boards, the Department of Education and CCMS have worked together to produce guidance for schools in relation to the standardisation of information. From now on all schools must report suspensions to the education and library board, and they will have to do it in one of 10 categories - for example, physical attack on pupils, physical attack on teachers or other school staff, verbal abuse of pupils, verbal abuse of staff, bullying of pupils, and so on. We will be collecting data on the basis of why those pupils were suspended, the number of days for which they are suspended, and so on so. That will give us a proper database.

128.

The behaviour support teams in each board will be able to target the real problems on the basis of that data. We will have a basis for intervention so that meaningful improvements can take place.

129.

Ms Morrice: As you say, you need the data before you can start doing something about it. There is no mention of expulsions.

130.

Mr Martin: Each school authority has very precise guidelines. A scheme is in operation in our own board, and I will use that as an example. The school board of governors must consider expulsions, and, in the controlled sector, a panel of the education and library board must hear the case. Very definite procedures are in place to ensure that expulsions do not take place on an arbitrary basis.

131.

Ms Morrice: You cannot manage what you have not measured, and that is the important point.

132.

The Chairperson: The number of expulsions would also be important.

133.

Mr Martin: That element is not contained in the audit report. It is confined to suspensions.

134.

Mr Beggs: I declare an interest in this, as I am a primary school parent governor. Mr McGinn is probably aware of recent Assembly questions that I asked on net expenditure per pupil in the primary and secondary school sector by board area, and the answer differed from information given to the Audit Office in section 8 of the report. The Audit Office was not given accurate figures. More up-to-date information was provided in answer to AQW 2389/01 and AQW 2390/01. Can you explain what happened?

135.

School expenditure figures provide key financial data. Why have some of boards been unable to provide the Audit Office with accurate information? Why has that not been rectified through the long clearance process designed to ensure that the Committee is made aware of the correct facts? Does the Department not know the amount of funding that it allocates to the boards? Does it not know the number of pupils in each board sector? It should have that information. The footnote for figure 20 on page 52 of the report states that the 1998-99 figures are the latest available. Why, three weeks after the report's publication, could the Department suddenly produce two years' figures? The absence of the up-to-date figures significantly detracted from the value of the report, and both the Department and the Western Education and Library Board should have done more to ensure that the information was available in a timely fashion.

136.

Mr McGinn: I apologise for the fact that that problem occurred, and I share the Committee's concerns about why that happened. The basis on which data, such as the breakdown of costs that boards provide, census figures or the amount of local money allocated to schools, is collected can create a distortion. In the past, while running a business, I was asked to outline how many employees I had. That seems like a simple question; however, it can mean full-time employees or the total number of employees.

137.

When preparing a report, accounting conventions come under the spotlight, and variations come into play. In responding to the report, the Department is ensuring that certain protocols, such as trying to get like for like, are in place. Taking the main recommendations forward will also act as an ongoing discipline by way of an annual compendium to ensure that certain protocols and issues are observed, which is a lesson that the Department has learnt.

138.

Mr Peover will comment on proper control, but financial memoranda and accountability reviews are in place. There is rigour around those measures that the Department considers important, and it regularly reviews issues to ensure that necessary value for money is achieved.

139.

Mr Peover: Mr McGinn has covered the Department's reasoning. Only one board published its information in the format asked for by the Audit Office. The other boards then had to do that.

140.

Mr Beggs: Which board was that?

141.

Mr Peover: It was the North Eastern Education and Library Board.

142.

Mr Beggs: Does the Department not have a standardised format for the information?

143.

Mr Peover: There is a great deal of information in the system. The Department's normal interaction with the boards relates to the LMS budget and return statements, which have standard formats. However, in this case, the boards were asked to collect information specific to the exercise. They then had to interpret the guidelines for its collection and different interpretations were placed on some of the categories. The Department realised that that had happened when the Assembly questions were asked and, in discussion with the Audit Office, it sought to agree on a consistent basis across the boards to pick up all the elements in a common fashion, so that the Department could refer to a single set of data.

144.

It is a great pity that that happened. The information should have been presented to the Audit Office in a standardised form. I hope that we have now agreed figures with the Audit Office that are consistent and that show the underlying trends in a transparent way across all the boards, for both maintained and controlled sectors.

145.

Mr Beggs: Figure 22 and the more up-to-date figures that I have received from the Department show that the spending per pupil in secondary schools in the Belfast area has always been greater in the controlled sector than in the maintained sector. However, in my own area in the North Eastern Board, it is the other way around. More importantly, how can the Department justify the huge variation in the figures? In the primary school sector there is a difference of 20·3% between the highest and lowest figures, and in the secondary school sector, that figure is 26·4%. It is not just the cream that is needed to help target social need, but about half a pint. I am even more concerned that, despite that variation, the North Eastern Board says that when the new formula is imposed, there will be 75 to 100 teacher redundancies. How can the Department justify those variations?

146.

Mr McGinn: There are two fundamental issues. Earlier we looked at the review of the common funding formula, which will replace the seven current formulae. The formula, which was created following consultation, will be one important component in the process of establishing future funding. The second component is the reassessment of the relative needs formula that has been in place for several years. The five education and library boards have agreed that it will be assessed urgently so that an agreed different formula can be put in place for the future. The current formula raises certain issues that the chief executives of the education and library boards must address. The assessment will address the way in which the boards are set up to provide support to schools and how funding is allocated. Mr Martin might wish to comment on the way in which the formula will be implemented.

147.

Mr Beggs: I am interested in the degree of variation in the funding.

148.

Mr Peover: We share a view on this matter. There should be no variations in funding, except where it is objectively justifiable. Part of the rationale for a common funding formula is that it will ensure that the needs of pupils are assessed in a standardised way and that a school's geographical location will be irrelevant to its level of funding. That does not mean that there will be no variation in school funding. Schools differ in the nature of their intakes, their physical plant, the costs of their heating and lighting, and their rates and maintenance expenditure. There will continue to be differences between schools, but the fact that a school is in one sector rather than another should not make a difference to its fundamental funding arrangements. The initiative of LMS commonality is intended to ensure that there are no funding differences that are not related to objective need.

149.

Mr Beggs: The issue of free school meals is a contributory factor to the huge variation in funding. First, this is not based on educational grounds. Secondly, there is a range of educational needs indicators. There are Key Stage figures and the Noble indices, which, under the heading of educational skills and training needs, detail factors such as the working age of adults with no qualifications; the percentage of pupils leaving school at the age of 16 and not going on to further education; the number of people who are unsuccessful in applying for higher education; GSCE performance data; absenteeism; and 11-plus successes. A range of indicators has been provided; why has the document been ignored by the Department of Education?

150.

Mr Peover: The Department has not ignored the document. It is difficult to approach those tasks on the basis of area-based data. Indices, such as Noble, relate to populations in given areas. Because Northern Ireland has open enrolment and both a segregated school system and a post-primary selective school system, there is a large movement of pupil populations across administrative and district council boundaries. It is difficult - indeed, probably impossible - to relate the characteristics of an area to the characteristics of each school population in that area as those might vary.

151.

Another problem with output data arises when trying to determine, for example, the number of children leaving school with few GCSEs or going into unemployment. That is because the data relates to the past - children who have been educated in a particular school during the past five years - and not to the children who currently attend that school. The Department has to strike some sort of balance between measuring the needs of the children who currently attend the school and the information about outcomes.

152.

The Department recognises the problems that you have mentioned. It wants to have access to good quality education assessment data. Key Stage 1 data is not particularly helpful because it does not differentiate sufficiently between pupils. Most pupils achieve at the expected level. As I said earlier in response to Mr Carrick, the Department will use Key Stage 2 data when trying to assess the funding needs of both primary schools and post-primary schools. The Department recognises the difficulties. However, area-based statistics are not a great help because of the fluidity of pupil populations across boundaries.

153.

Mr Beggs: Does the Department recognise that there is an equality issue with regard to certain communities' failure to claim benefits? Some communities have a history of not claiming benefit entitlements. For example, recent statistics indicate that there has been a poor uptake of the warm homes scheme in certain areas. There are areas in which pensioners do not claim their benefits entitlement. It appears that the benefit culture does not exist in certain places. Many people do not avail of free school meals and are therefore further disadvantaging their children. Do you accept that?

154.

Mr Peover: In considering the policy of LMS commonality, the Department has examined its equality implications as a whole and the individual components within it. Certainly the Department feels that it is more satisfactory to try to measure educational disadvantage alongside social disadvantage.

155.

Mr Beggs: Page 15 of the Audit Office report shows that all boards have decided upon how to increase the numbers of pre-school places using a balance of in-house provision and partnership with the private and voluntary providers. Can you inform the Committee as to how the boards ensure that best value is achieved when decisions are made regarding the mix of pre-school providers? Does the Department take into consideration the capital cost of each method of provision and the degree of flexibility afforded to itself and to the boards to enable them to vary provision depending on population size? What assessment has the Department made in determining the level of quality that is provided by each method? Can you confirm that all sectors undergo the same type of inspection and have the same type of results?

156.

Mr Peover: Allow me to elaborate on that point which I addressed earlier. The inspection ratings apply to all sectors, and funded places are inspected on the same basis.

157.

Mr Beggs: Are the results published?

158.

Mr Peover: All inspection reports are published.

159.

Mr Beggs: What is the quality assessment of the different sectors?

160.

Mr Peover: The quality is satisfactory. However, where it is unsatisfactory the Department of Education will withdraw entitlement.

161.

Mr Beggs: What is the overall picture of comparison between the state nursery sector, the voluntary sector and the private sector?

162.

Mr Peover: The overall picture is satisfactory in all sectors. That is the basis for funding of those sectors. They were inspected in the first year of provision.

163.

Mr Beggs: Can you provide the Committee with statistics?

164.

Mr Peover: No. The assessment is not carried out that way.

165.

Mr Beggs: Why not?

166.

Mr Peover: Whether or not a provision is satisfactory is a matter of professional judgement on the part of the inspectorate. It is not a matter of totting up statistics and saying whether the outcomes are appropriate. There are objective factors, such as the qualifications of staff, the satisfactoriness of the premises, and so on, but, ultimately, the basic assessment criterion is whether children are receiving an adequate quality of education in that setting. That is a matter of professional judgement, so it is difficult to tabulate or to quantify.

167.

There are detailed arrangements for the planning of pre-school provision. At regional level the Department is involved in dialogue with all the major partners, including the voluntary and private sector partners. At area board level there are pre-school education advisory groups that consider in detail the demand in any given area, sub-region, town or district. They look at the needs of that area and try to plan the most appropriate and effective pattern of provision.

168.

Mr Martin: I want to endorse what Mr Peover said. In relation to your first question about how the basis is determined, it is recognised that although there was a low level of nursery provision in Northern Ireland there was significant input being made and a good job being done by the voluntary non-statutory sector. That was an important starting point. It was also recognised that establishing a system that was entirely within the statutory sector would have seriously set back the excellent work that was already being done.

169.

As Mr Peover says, one of the key objectives was to ensure that there was a consistency of quality. From the experience in our board working with the pre-school advisory group, which represents all the different sectors, we are satisfied that there is a fair basis of distribution of places between the different providers and also that there is consistency of standards regarding what is being delivered to the children. It is possible that the emphasis varies slightly in some pre-school groups. The quality of output, however, is consistent.

170.

Mr Beggs: You have not answered the question about how you take into consideration the capital costs of, and the flexibility provided by, one method compared with another, bearing in mind that in some areas nursery wings are being added to schools in which everything is free. The voluntary playgroups, therefore, cannot fill their places. They start to dwindle and eventually close down. However, they have pupils for whom 100% funding has not been provided. The system is favouring the more formal type of education rather than playgroups. How does the Department of Education take into consideration capital costs and flexibility in order to ensure that it is getting value for money?

171.

Mr Peover: It was always planned that there should be a mix of statutory, voluntary and private provision. The Department has no statutory authority to undertake capital expenditure in either the voluntary or the private sector. It is enabled to build only within the statutory nursery sector.

172.

In consideration of any given area the Department, as Mr Martin has said, would look at what is already on the ground. If there is a viable, functioning pre-school playgroup or private provision in an area, the pre-school advisory group for that area would consider what would be its best mix of provision, taking into account the availability of capital resources. Capital resources for the programme are scarce. The budget is limited. The Department could not provide school nursery wings or units for every child of pre-school age, even if it wanted to. There is therefore always going to be a mix of provision. That was always intended. Planning is carried out on a case-by-case basis for every local area, taking into account both its particular characteristics and the needs and wants of parents. Capital implications are relevant; the Department has a limited capital budget. They are not, however, the only factor that is taken into account.

173.

Mr Beggs: Is the Department aware that certain pre-school groups are facing closure despite having been assessed to be of a high standard and having full enrolment numbers for coming years? I know of a playgroup that almost closed last year because its enrolment numbers were short by one child - even though adequate numbers had enrolled for the following year. Staff had been developed to the required standard, and the school had future sustainability. However, only seven children were earmarked for the immediate pre-school year. That group, in a rural community, almost closed because it was one child short. There would have been no continuity of provision in that community. Why are future sustainable numbers not taken into consideration?

174.

Mr Peover: They are taken into consideration. I am happy to respond in a particular case, should you wish to mention it or send details. Generally we examine the best sustainable provision and the appropriate mix for a particular area, taking account of what already exists and avoiding displacement where possible.

175.

Mr Beggs: I will speak to you after the meeting, but I am aware that no such consideration was taken in the case to which I referred. Parents were given notice that the school would close because it was short of one pupil, even though there were sufficient numbers for subsequent years. My view differs from yours.

176.

Mr McGinn: One further point may interest the Committee. With regard to the new provision, post-1998 the breakdown is 50% statutory and 50% voluntary. That mix has been helpful in achieving the rate of increase from 45% to a probable 95% or 96% next year.

177.

Mr McClelland: To a certain degree Mr McGinn and Mr Martin have answered my questions with regard to the quality of data on suspensions and expulsions, and have said that they will investigate that area. I thank them for that. I want to elicit some further information. What is the procedure when a child is suspended or expelled? Is the child taught at home?

178.

Mr Martin: An extensive support programme is in place. That is known as EOTAS - education other than at school. There are several centres with support services and providers outside the normal statutory school sector. Depending on the length of the suspension, there is a range of tuition services, and those are centralised under the guidance of the special schools which co-ordinate outreach support.

179.

Mr McClelland: I welcome that. Unfortunately the data is not of a quality which will tell us the duration of a suspension. It strikes me as an expensive way to deal with the problem. What is the cost per day of a pupil who is expelled or suspended? Is the cost standard between boards?

180.

Mr Martin: We do not have that information. A pupil could be suspended for one day or two and will be at home. A child could be suspended for an extensive period, or expelled from school. That is an issue. The welfare of the child is most important, and someone must deal with the situation. It is a matter of trying to ensure that that child finds a place in another school. Sometimes there are difficulties with that. Boards, especially recently, are developing a range of provisions to ensure that there is adequate provision for those children and to ensure that there are mechanisms to reintegrate pupils into schools.

181.

Mr McClelland: I welcome that, but the point that concerns me is that in making such a decision your report gives no indication of the cost to the board or to the Department. I would welcome the annual publication of a compendium, as Mr McGinn mentioned earlier, which gave such information at board level. That might help us to deal with the vexed problem of suspensions and expulsions.

182.

Mr Peover: It should be possible to provide that information. We know how many pupils are in receipt of the outside provision referred to by Mr Martin. We have bid under the Executive programme funds initiative for resources to fund alternative provision for pupils who have either been expelled from school or who have, effectively, removed themselves from the school system and, by not returning, have excluded themselves.

183.

Mr McClelland: Can you make a guesstimate on the cost?

184.

Mr Peover: I would not like to give a guesstimate. We know that there are more than 500 children outside the school system on alternative provision of the type described by Mr Martin, and there are another 174 who are on home tuition. Those figures are taken from the 2000-01 school year, the latest year for which we have data.

185.

There is in excess of approximately £3 million, which we have acquired from within the Department's baseline and from Executive programme funds to help us fund provision for those pupils. However, it does not catch all the pupils involved. Those on suspension, for example, are still, in some cases, being catered for by the school, which is providing homework and keeping in contact with them while they are on, in most cases, a relatively short period of suspension. However, we recognise that this is a significant issue, and we have had a number of conferences on the nature of alternative provision. We are in the process of working out a strategy for alternative provision for pupils who, for whatever reasons, need additional support. In some cases this can be in school, in some cases between schools and other providers and in some cases outside school. The Minister has expressed his commitment to finding resources and to having in place an adequate strategy for those pupils. We are developing a curriculum for them. We are developing guidance on good practice for providers, so it is an area of educational policy development, and it is extremely important to us.

186.

Mr McClelland: I welcome that, and I welcome the look at a new strategy. However, without any indication of the cost of the current provision, it is difficult to move forward to a new strategy. Perhaps we could have an indication of the cost in the next publication.

187.

Mr Peover: It should be possible to quantify existing expenditure; however, it would only be partial. It is hoped that, in the longer term, we shall have a policy strategy and a funding strategy that we can report on.

188.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr Beggs): The Chairperson has had to leave due to circumstances beyond my control. In the absence of the Deputy Chairperson, the Committee Clerk has asked me to take his place.

189.

Mr Hilditch: I know we are approaching the end of the session, and we have moved over a fair bit of ground. I have a couple of questions relating to pages 18 and 19 of the report. Figure 3 shows that in 2000-01 the boards were moving steadily towards the requirement in the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 that no four- to eight-year-olds should be in a class of more than 30 pupils. However, figure 4 on page 19 shows that this is broadly the case across the primary sector. You have not achieved that legislative requirement. How and when do you expect to do so?

190.

Mr McGinn: A great deal of progress has been made. We discussed the issue of the maximum of 30 pupils when we met with the boards, and Mr Martin will comment on that. However, you can end up with literally one pupil that will take the class size to 31. It can be something as simple as twins, believe it or not. Sometimes you cannot justify the impact it would have on expenditure, particularly in small schools. However, I reassure the Committee that this is an issue, which we review when we meet and that it is being actively pursued. There are a number of practical decisions that have to be made, but I also wish to recognise the effort that has been made to date.

191.

Mr Martin: What Mr McGinn said is exactly the situation. The figure is small. In fact, we have almost achieved that target, and there are those particular circumstances. In addition, we should acknowledge that the Department has put significant funding into ensuring that provision is such that this will not happen. Therefore the Department has made a funding commitment, the figures have been reduced, and the examples given by Mr McGinn illustrate the range of reasons why the target may not be met.

192.

Mr McGinn: In the last year the amount of money was approximately £3 million. That is almost 10 times more than was spent four or five years ago, and it is a measure of commitment.

193.

Mr Hilditch: The reason for cutting class sizes in primary schools is to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Paragraph 3.1 points out that sustainability of this policy depends on additional departmental funding, as has been mentioned, for additional teachers and accommodation. What evidence do you have that demonstrates that additional expenditure has provided better value for money in terms of improved educational outcomes in the schools concerned?

194.

Mr Peover: That issue has been around for several years. It is very difficult to disentangle the impact of separate initiatives on outcomes. We are talking about pre-school provision, reading recovery, reducing class sizes, literacy and numeracy strategies, and additional in-service training for teachers, all of which contribute to an outcome. It is difficult to say that that initiative produced 10% of the improvement. It is an intangible form of input where it is hard to say that a certain amount of the improvement resulted from a particular aspect of the initiative. We think that it is important, and teachers tell us that it is important.

195.

There is evidence to show that where levels of adult/pupil interaction can be increased, it has a beneficial impact on children's performance. There is a great deal of research to show that it is good to have smaller class sizes and, alongside that initiative, to have classroom assistants in the early years of primary education. All of those things have a beneficial impact on children's learning. However, I cannot point to a specific figure and say that we have achieved X% of improvement as a result of that specific initiative. It is part of a large package of measures being used to address disadvantage and underachievement across the school system.

196.

Mr Hilditch: Can you give us written details of the number of appeals against primary schools admissions over the last five years, and what proportion of those were unsuccessful?

197.

Mr Peover: Details of appeals against admissions to primary schools?

198.

Mr Hilditch: Yes.

199.

Ms Armitage: In paragraph 7.3, figure 19 shows that the South Eastern Board has had the highest rate of statementing in recent years, and on one occasion it was twice that of the North Eastern Board. Why should one board issue far more statements than others? Could it be that there is a strong lobby of very articulate parents driving the statementing process in the North Eastern Board?

200.

Mr McGinn: It is important that we have a code of practice and that it is actively pursued. Some boards have a certain stage in the code for addressing the need that may, or may not, require statementing. Therefore the statistics do not necessarily capture the activity with each board. The South Eastern Board has a well-developed system for dealing with statementing, and it has been particularly active. In comparison with the other boards, there is no doubt that it is considerably ahead.

201.

Parents' awareness has increased in that whole area, and the statistics are likely to rise. We have done work on autism, for example, that suggests that, so the need for addressing special education needs is likely to rise rather than fall. There is a code of practice that has taken that forward very effectively. There are practical issues outside the control of the boards in terms of inputs that they require, which affects the speed. Mr Martin may be able to respond to the second part of the question.

202.

Mr Martin: I would be reluctant to comment on one board in particular. That is a historical situation, which, I believe, has now been taken care of. The five boards have agreed common criteria. It is therefore likely that the broad level of statementing should be much the same. There may be different circumstances in different areas, but, by and large, there will be a common outcome.

203.

The boards are carrying out a fundamental best value review of special education, to look at consistency of practice. When that is available, it will help us to be better informed and ensure consistency.

204.

Ms Armitage: Paragraph 7.4 of the report states: "In responding to the Audit Review Group in January 1999, the Boards pointed out that guidance in a new Code of Practice introduced in September 1998 would ensure a more consistent approach is followed throughout the process of assessing special educational needs."

205.

Presumably that would iron out the variations in the statements issued. However, one could assume that the continuing statementing in the North Eastern Education and Library Board is an indication that the process has not been successful to date.

206.

Mr Martin: The point about the comparison with the other board is that once a pupil is statemented that statement carries through with the pupil until the end of his or her school life. A bulge in a particular board at a particular time would carry on for a significant number of years. The levelling off after that will eventually mean that there will be a levelling of performance or outcome.

207.

Ms Armitage: Figure 19 in the report shows the percentage in each board of children with statements of special educational needs. I am trying to make sense of what those statistics mean in terms of benefit to the children. Is it the case that children with special educational needs in the South Eastern Education and Library Board receive an unequal share of resources, while the rationing of statements by other boards threatens to weaken the entitlements of their children? Has an evaluation been carried out as to whether the greater statementing rate in the South Eastern Board has led to improvements in the development of pupils with special educational needs?

208.

Mr Peover: There are several factors that explain the higher rate of statementing. The differences in the statementing criteria adopted by the boards have an impact on the percentage rates of statemented pupils. However, as Mr Martin said, the boards have been evolving, through the regional strategy, a common set of criteria which should even that out.

209.

The bulk of provision for children is made in school. Therefore, if a child has a special need, either temporary or more long term, the first port of call is the school itself. Some children may need to attend a special school or unit, but may remain in an ordinary school with a statement. It is to be hoped that, in general, schools are enabled to make adequate provision for the needs of a pupil as required. We would like to see consistency of treatment and consistency in the application of the criteria. However, it is to be hoped also that schools are responding to the needs of their pupils and trying to meet those needs within the resources available to the school. Resorting to a formal statement and a placement in another school is not the best way to respond to the needs of individual pupils. I hope that it is not distorting the resourcing of pupil needs. I would like to think that the school system responds to special needs.

210.

Ms Armitage: As I understand it, according to paragraph 7.1 of the report, the assessment system for pupils with special needs provides a guarantee that specific resources will be provided for as long as a child needs them and also allows parental access to legal remedy when those resources are denied to them. These are important safeguards for the most needy children in our schools. Why should the safeguard be delayed for parents and their children because of the board's failure to process the statements in a timely way? They should not suffer because of the board's administration.

211.

Mr McGinn: The primacy in this is the child, and, of course, the parents. If you look at the overall numbers, all boards are meeting 90% of needs within a six-week period. The difficulties arise when other inputs are required that are out of their direct control. That plays a part, and perhaps Mr Martin will want to comment on that. There is a scarcity of resource with regard to professional input that is required as part of the statement process, and that impacts on the target.

212.

Ms Armitage: Is the target 90% in a six-week period?

213.

Mr McGinn: The bulk can be dealt with relatively quickly, but it still leaves a significant percentage. Parents would be very sensitive to time. There is still a percentage that takes longer, but every effort is being made to try to meet the target. There are practical issues that arise.

214.

Mr Martin: Under the code of practice there is a target that 18 weeks is the time within which a statement will be prepared. That was taken from the English code of practice. They have been unable to achieve that target in England; we are striving to achieve it as best we can. It is only right that statements are processed as quickly as possible, and, with funding from the Department of Education, each board now has more psychologists to meet those needs. However, as Mr McGinn said, not all elements are within the control of the board in that they have to get reports from medical authorities, health and social services boards, and so on. Sometimes the reports can be delayed. There are even situations where parents do not respond and do not come to meetings when they should. That is a factor that they are responsible for, but there is great willingness on the part of all boards to strive as hard as possible to meet the target. Only time will tell to what extent we will meet that target, but we are trying very hard to do that.

215.

Ms Armitage: How far out are you with the 18-week target?

216.

Mr Martin: We do not know.

217.

Ms Armitage: It is an ongoing target for the medical profession, and that could create a problem for the board. It could be further up the ladder.

218.

Mr Close: I want to satisfy myself that I heard the figures correctly. When the gentlemen replied to a question about suspension, a figure of approximately 500 pupils was mentioned. Is that figure correct?

219.

Mr Peover: Some 500 pupils are being educated through alternative provision in the school, and 174 are receiving home tuition.

220.

Mr Close: The other figure was £3 million.

221.

Mr Peover: I would need to check that figure.

222.

Mr Close: It worries me when I look at the net expenditure per nursery school pupil. These are ordinary decent children who are not causing ructions. The cost varies from £1,711 to £2,900. In primary school, it varies from £1,991 to £2,294. In secondary school, the cost varies from £3,066 to £3,620. If my mathematics are correct and you divide £3 million by 500, some £6,000 is being spent on those who have disrupted classrooms, made life hell for other pupils and potentially teachers, yet they seem to be taken by the hand and resources are poured at them. There is something wrong in that type of balance. That money should be spent on the ordinary decent kid who has gone through procedures and does not have the potential to be one of the future thugs and gangsters of society.

223.

Mr Peover: My mental arithmetic is not as good as Mr Close's, but I am sure he is right. We recognise that providing services for difficult young people, whether they are in or outside school, is very expensive, whether it is an in-school unit with low pupil/teacher ratios, or work with alternative providers, or work with board staff on a one-to-one or a one-to-two basis.

224.

The evidence that we have, both locally and from the National Foundation for Educational Research is that in the longer term it is cheap, because the children we are talking about are at risk of serious long-term problems with the juvenile and adult justice systems. They are also at long-term risk of poor employment records and poor health status. If those children end up in the juvenile justice system, the cost is likely to be two or three times as much as it would be to cater for them successfully in the education system.

225.

Longer-term cost savings can be made if we can stop those young people from disengaging entirely with the education system. It is expensive and, in some senses, unfair on those are who in the school system. However, the alternative is to let them go and end up with a serious social problem in the longer term. That is what we are trying to address. I recognise that it is expensive, but it is to be hoped that it is money well spent.

226.

Mr McClelland: My understanding is that the £3 million was extra or more. Is it not the case that the figure to be spent on this problem is actually much greater than £3 million?

227.

Mr Peover: That is correct. I shall check the figures and come back to you. In looking at the school improvement programme, where we have a block of resources for tackling a whole range of matters including discipline and behavioural issues, we felt it was important to carve out resources for alternative provision. The boards were making partial provision for these pupils, and several voluntary organisations were making provision for them without funding from any statutory agency. Therefore, we carved out some money ourselves. We bid for money under the Executive programme funds initiative on the basis that investment in those young people, who are currently at risk, would save resources in the long term and prevent problems that might otherwise arise.

228.

There is also an issue about how much of this money is truly additional and how much should follow the pupils from the schools. In many cases those pupils are still on the school rolls, and the schools are still being resourced for them. They are receiving an age-weighted pupil unit for each child.

229.

There are difficulties about what sort of incentives you create by moving the money out of schools and saying that someone else must deal with the problem. We would like to integrate as many children as possible back into school to ensure that they are not lost to the system. Some will be unable, for whatever reason, to ever come back to school, and we need particular provision for those children. However, our aim is to create as much partnership as possible within schools and between them and further education colleges, voluntary sector providers and training organisations.

230.

There are some very good examples. I will provide the Committee with some inspection reports of projects funded under the European special support programme for peace and reconciliation on alternative provision, which showed very heartening and, indeed, exciting impacts on young people's attainment as a result of provision that they found acceptable and challenging, and which gave them a sense of achievement. It is an important area of policy. I recognise Mr Close's point that it is expensive. However, the question is whether it will prove to be a good long-term investment that will prevent the occurrence of serious problems later on.

231.

Mr McClelland: That is something that we might return to a year from now.

232.

The Acting Chairperson: Thank you all for providing evidence today. The length of the meeting and the nature of the questioning have shown the extent of the members' interest in the subject of comparative educational performance indicators in different areas. The Committee recognises that performance indicators are not an end in themselves, rather a means to improve education. Performance indicators need not to be seen as a threat, but as a way to enable professionals to diagnose strengths and weaknesses, and to assure quality throughout the school system. That approach is in line with the publication of the public service agreements for all Government Departments that are aimed at enabling them to track performance and improve accountability.

233.

It is clear, however, that performance information in the educational sector is not as good, or as up to date, as it should be. Mr McGinn, I am against glib comparisons, but in your previous role as chief executive of a major bank, I take it you would not have been content to provide banking services without up-to-date and accurate information on the performance of your bank network in the provision of services to customers. I take it that you did not operate with information that was more than two years out of date and that did not compare different sectors carrying out the same functions, yet on school spending this was all the boards could provide to the Audit Office.

234.

In the light of this session, the Committee's report will emphasis the need to improve the availability of information about how the education and library boards and their schools are performing. The Committee looks to you to ensure that that is put in place.

235.

Thank you for working with the Committee to draw that information out.

236.

Mr McGinn: On behalf of Mr Peover, Mr Martin and myself, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the report. The Committee's points about up-to-date information, comparables and the use of information in a productive way to achieve improvement have been taken on board. We will adopt that approach and use the report constructively to make the improvements we all want to achieve.

CORRESPONDENCE OF 20 JUNE 2002 FROM MR STEPHEN PEOVER,
DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

We spoke about the items of additional information, etc which we had undertaken to provide for the Committee. These proved a little more difficult to come by than I had expected but are as follows:

It is not possible to separate out the costs of KS1 from those of KS2 but the available data are as follows for the year April 2001-March 2002:

ii. Provision of Funded Pre-School Places

The data below are drawn from the school census and relate to the numbers present on the census date and do not allow for absentees or unfilled places:

The figures below relate to the additional resources allocated specifically by the Department for alternative provision. Education and Library Boards also make provision from within their budgets for services to pupils of this type and in the case of pupils suspended only for short periods, their schools often continue to provide support by setting homework, circulating hand-outs, etc.

A copy of the Inspection report on EOTAS/SSPPR published in 2000 is also enclosed. This includes in Chapter 9 an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of this type of provision which was the specific issue raised by Mr Close at the hearing.

The costs to date of the Burns Report and the subsequent consultation on post primary structures are as follows:

A table is enclosed showing the numbers of appeals in total and the numbers upheld by Board area for the years 1996/97 to 2001/02

We have consulted the Procurement Service on the availability of this type of information and we understand that, as is the case with data on the costs of individual assignments, this type of information is regarded as commercial in confidence and is not published.

This reflects the line also taken in response to a number of Assembly Questions but I would be happy to discuss the matter with you, if you wish.

Top